<p>Genius being a relative term, of course. In your opinion, are you a genius? If so, please state your definition of genius and why you believe you fit this definition.</p>
<p>No. The 99th percentile in intelligence is genius. I'm not there.</p>
<p>Psh. 99th percentile. In that case, pretty much everyone at any of the top 10 universities are geniuses, which is certainly not the case (c.f. <a href="http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/forumdisplay.php?f=40)%5B/url%5D">http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/forumdisplay.php?f=40)</a>. 99.9th percentile, at least.</p>
<p>I'd consider myself a genius, yes. Call me arrogant, I don't care.</p>
<p>I might as well clear it out of the way that I am not one for standardized tests, and I never will be. I don't believe that anyone who scores in the 99.9th percentile on standardized tests are geniuses, either. I think genius revolves more around creativity than anything, which a lot of people who do well on standardized tests tend to lack. I have some crazy good ideas (for example, I accidentally reinvented transfinite induction on a boring, internet-less weekend), and whenever I come up with what I think might be a good idea in the future, I write it in a little notebook I have, which I bring with me pretty much everywhere. So far, about 10 pages are filled, but I think they're all fairly unique and well thought-out ideas.</p>
<p>Pretty much everyone I meet tends to think I'm a genius as well, but I think the general public's standard for genius is way too low, as I keep most of my (in my totally humble opinion) genius ideas in my head or in my notebook, which no one has looked inside of.</p>
<p>Why does this thread exist?</p>
<p>
[quote]
What other ideas do you have? Are you a genius because of your self-discovery of transfinite induction?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No, I just used my reinvention of transfinite induction as an example. I'd actually consider some of my other ideas in math and physics greater, although I think a lot of people would look at me weird if they saw some of my ideas.</p>
<p>I have a lot of random ideas as well. My goal in life is to become a mathematician or physicist and then, later in my life (age 60 or so), retire to become a novelist, so I'm saving these up for some excellent book ideas.</p>
<p>I'd also like to say that I think it's definitely true that there's a fine line between genius and insanity, and I think a lot of people would define me to have a lot of the latter quality. If people knew some of the ideas going through my brain, I would end up in handcuffs.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Why do you say that?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Any test where you can take a class on it and score significantly higher (GUARANTEED!) is not a test that tests creativity. Thus, I don't believe there much of a correlation between creativity and your standardized test score.</p>
<p>I qualify under the definition of genius (IQ > 140) but I'm not sure that is a valid way to define it.</p>
<p>I think there are other things necessary to be a genius that I lack.</p>
<p>Why do you think creativity is necessary to be a genius? Some of the people in the history of the world that have qualified as a "genius" by almost anybody's definition have had little to do with art/writing and other mediums to express creativity.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Why do you think creativity is necessary to be a genius? Some of the people in the history of the world that have qualified as a "genius" by almost anybody's definition have had little to do with art/writing and other mediums to express creativity.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Who said creativity is limited to art/writing? Creativity is definitely required and utilized for upper-level (not high school or lower-level college, mind you) mathematics and physics. This is just one example, obviously... creativity comes into play in many, many fields.</p>
<p>To answer your former question: Would you consider a robot a genius? Or your computer? Me neither. Unless you're creative, you're just a tool.</p>
<p>The term "genius" is subjective.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Psh. 99th percentile. In that case, pretty much everyone at any of the top 10 universities are geniuses, which is certainly not the case (c.f. <a href="http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/...play.php?f=40)%5B/url%5D">http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/...play.php?f=40)</a>. 99.9th percentile, at least.
[/quote]
The average SAT percentile at most colleges is under the 99th percentile (on the SAT). Now, one could argument that the 98th percentile on the SAT is more like the 99th percentile when compared to the general population.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I don't believe that anyone who scores in the 99.9th percentile on standardized tests are geniuses, either.
[/quote]
I think you are thinking of this wrong. A standardized test can be anything; the fact it's standardized means nothing. You are probably questioning if a test in general can detect genius. I think most would say yes. If someone scores at the 99.9th percentile on the AMC 12 (a standardized test), they are most certainly a genius. Then one can simply look at the Lowell competition. That test certainly detects for genius. In fact, one could argue that simply getting a single point on that test makes someone a genius.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Who said creativity is limited to art/writing?
[/quote]
I don't know, I don't know where you pulled that from - I know I most certainly did not say that.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I don't know, I don't know where you pulled that from - I know I most certainly did not say that.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Post #9: "Some of the people in the history of the world that have qualified as a "genius" by almost anybody's definition have had little to do with art/writing and other mediums to express creativity."</p>
<p>
[quote]
You are probably questioning if a test in general can detect genius. I think most would say yes. If someone scores at the 99.9th percentile on the AMC 12 (a standardized test), they are most certainly a genius. Then one can simply look at the Lowell competition. That test certainly detects for genius. In fact, one could argue that simply getting a single point on that test makes someone a genius.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I know people who were USAMO qualifiers and they just... didn't know what they were doing when it came to real math. (Actually, I didn't know he was a USAMO qualifier until my friend told me he was -- I thought he was just some newbie trying to do advanced math and failing horribly.) You can study for the AMC. Same for the Putnam. The only reason MIT scores so high on the Putnam all the time is because they have CLASSES on the Putnam. If there are classes for a test, that implies that there are very specific and often-used methods used for solving problems such that if you know enough of these methods and know how to utilize them well, you can do extremely well on the test. If such occurs, then a test cannot measure creativity and thus cannot measure genius.</p>
<p>I stand by my argument that for a test to measure creativity (and thus genius, by my definition), it must be a test in which one cannot perform significantly better by studying for it.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Post #9: "Some of the people in the history of the world that have qualified as a "genius" by almost anybody's definition have had little to do with art/writing and other mediums to express creativity."
[/quote]
If you're a genius then apparently reading comprehension is not part of the requirement...
[quote]
and other mediums to express creativity.
[/quote]
kthxbye</p>
<p>I was assuming that you were using the liberal arts (excluding the natural sciences) as the only fields where creativity can be expressed, which is something a lot of people assume to be true.</p>
<p>Otherwise, your sentence really doesn't make sense. Look it over again, buddy. Why don't you give me an example of someone who didn't express their creativity "by other mediums", but is someone whom everyone considers a genius?</p>
<p>Every genius by anyone's definition has used some medium to express their creativity. But I invite you to try to find a counterexample. After you attempt to do so, I will tell you why you're wrong and how this person did use his/her creativity to portray his/her genius.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I know people who were USAMO qualifiers and they just... didn't know what they were doing when it came to real math.
[/quote]
This sounds absurdly anecdotal. I think the real point is this: how many people know what they are doing with real math? The number is low. Even though you don't respect those USAMO qualifiers, they certainly understand more about math than the vast vast majority of the general population. Thus, under your implication, are smarter.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The only reason MIT scores so high on the Putnam all the time is because they have CLASSES on the Putnam.
[/quote]
Wrong. That might be one reason. I'm sure the huge differential in scores on the Putnam is due more to individual ability than "amount of studying". I'd guess most top tier schools have classes on the Putnam...</p>
<p>
[quote]
If there are classes for a test, that implies that there are very specific and often-used methods used for solving problems such that if you know enough of these methods and know how to utilize them well, you can do well on the test.
[/quote]
Knowing how to utilize methods and tools is the key phrase. Doing that for the Putnam requires real intellect.</p>
<p>
[quote]
If such occurs, then a test cannot measure creativity and thus cannot measure genius.
[/quote]
I'd disagree with that. You say genius requires creativity more than anything. I'd say it requires intellect more than anything, because a 70 IQ creative person isn't going to have a "genius" existence.</p>
<p>"Any test where you can take a class on it and score significantly higher (GUARANTEED!) is not a test that tests creativity. Thus, I don't believe there much of a correlation between creativity and your standardized test score."</p>
<p>Well, that's super, phuriku, but you didn't answer the question. Lack of a positive correlation doesn't prove a negative correlation. Where's the tendency of people who score in the upper percentiles on standardized tests to lack creativity?</p>
<p>"I think genius revolves more around creativity than anything, which a lot of people who do well on standardized tests tend to lack."</p>
<p>Dude, are you that Peter Reinhardt guy?</p>
<p>Nevertheless, I think in this day and age, intelligent people (when I say intelligent, I mean those who are capable of at least understanding things in their immediate vicinity/bias - which is a very loose definition for perhaps at least the Top 30% of people) can identify at least a bona fide genius. Scientists like Ed Witten and Andrew Wiles are without question, considered geniuses to the general public. However, some of us just "know it when we see it" types can distinguish advanced cognitive ability merely by listening to how another person talks, what his beliefs are, and what he's been doing.</p>
<p>I think a key component to the higher levels of intelligence is being able to assess things from a completely rational standpoint, without any emotional BS clouding your judgment or perhaps misleading you in your problem solving and goals. I've spoken with phuriku, and I would say he's really intelligent. A genius? That has yet to be proven - we'll see what he does down the road.</p>
<p>I would also consider the well-known CC poster InquilineKea to be exceptionally intelligent. His AS basically makes him immune to all the emotional feelings so necessary to superficial motivations. The guy's able to just sit down and read a bunch of books just for the heck of it, and finds stuff like studying for school or going through relationships a burden on himself. Heck, IK's still the only person I know who looks at the bigger picture. I'll never forget when I was stressing to him about college admissions, just like the rest of us superficial CCers. Looking back, I can see how utterly stupid, immature, and trivial that was. But it was difficult to assess that at the time. He did though.</p>
<p>As for myself, I would say that I'm more a product of business acumen and opportunism than any actual intelligence. Every single one of my accomplishments was a merit of hard work and discipline, but I would never say that I'm some sort of a genius. I'm not as rational as IK is, but I'm certainly more rational than 99% of the posters on here, who emotionally equate their intelligence with college admissions. Idiotic.</p>
<p>Nevertheless, I think we can speak in relative terms. I have yet to meet a single person at my college that I would consider a true genius. The people there seem strikingly superficial, very much emotional, and retardedly biased to the extent that it's kind of like a small-town bubble. Don't get me wrong, I still love my college for these very superficial opportunities - the same ones that IK would shun - but it seems like most of the people there have incredibly low problem solving skills and an inability to see outside the box. In this context yes, I'm a freaking genius.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Well, that's super, phuriku, but you didn't answer the question. Lack of a positive correlation doesn't prove a negative correlation. Where's the tendency of people who score in the upper percentiles on standardized tests to lack creativity?
[/quote]
Creatively correlates positively with intellect. It's a low correlation though.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I'd say it requires intellect more than anything, because a 70 IQ creative person isn't going to have a "genius" existence.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, that statement says nothing about requiring intellect more than anything... it just says the obvious: that a genius cannot lack intellect.</p>
<p>A 140 IQ person with no creativity whatsoever also cannot lead a "genius" existence. I think both creativity and intellect are required, but I think creativity is what makes the genius. Didn't Feynman have something like a 120 IQ?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Well, that's super, phuriku, but you didn't answer the question. Lack of a positive correlation doesn't prove a negative correlation. Where's the tendency of people who score in the upper percentiles on standardized tests to lack creativity?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I never said there was a negative correlation, and I don't believe there's a negative correlation. I believe there is a slight positive correlation, but because there is not a high positive correlation, there tend to be many people who score high on standardized tests who are not very creative. Read my quote again closely.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Well, that statement says nothing about requiring intellect more than anything... it just says the obvious: that a genius cannot lack intellect.</p>
<p>A 140 IQ person with no creativity whatsoever also cannot lead a "genius" existence.
[/quote]
You do realize I was basically just copying your first post in the thread, right?</p>